- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 212
- Points
- 0
Actually you misspelt "Soon Juan" and "Bye". Or by "Bye" did you mean "Siok Chin"?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Land to be given to Malaysia worth billions: analyst
- Thread starter cheekenpie
- Start date
Actually you misspelt "Soon Juan" and "Bye". Or by "Bye" did you mean "Siok Chin"?
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 18,719
- Points
- 0
Perhaps you're the one got the point unlike others who keep attacking PAP for whatever it's worth or not just for the sake of opposing PAP. When you trade lands with others, it's commercial commonsense to get the media to blow up the values of the lands you're trading in.
Nevertheless, Tanjung Pagar KTM station and land was a mistake at the point of independence. On hindsight perhaps, but a mistake on the part of LKY nonetheless. He should have kicked them all out there and then if his foresight was as good as he claimed to be. However, I can understand his hesitation as in that era bus, lorry and road traffic wasn't so developed and Singapore could be in dire straits without rail traffic.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 212
- Points
- 0
Told you already, it's "soon juan" or "siok chin" not "bye".
grow land by land reclamation, no?
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,247
- Points
- 0
Initially my first impression was why should SG gave that plots of land to Malaysia? but after reading in details on the exchange, I think gaining back Tanjong Pagar is essential. It's a win-win situation for everyone, and in this manner, I think SG got a bigger win.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 212
- Points
- 0
What? Still no bridge? TDM eat your heart out!
This is something that would end all dispute over who really own the KTM land
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201007134939/railway-land-swap-new-light-on-an-old-issue.html
Railway Land Swap: New Light On An Old Issue Tuesday, 13 July 2010 12:07 Written by RSIS
The Malaysian Deputy Foreign Minister’s recent statement in Parliament that the Malayan Railway land in Singapore did not belong to Malaysia but was leased sheds new light on an old issue. Was this the reason for the breakthrough in bilateral ties?
By Yang Razali Kassim
Malaysian Deputy Foreign Minister Richard Riot Jaem’s statement in Parliament on 28 June -- on the landmark deal for a swap of Malayan Railway land in Singapore -- has shed new light on an old issue. Responding to a question from an opposition PAS MP the deputy minister unveiled what had hitherto been little known to the public in Malaysia as well as Singapore.
Railway Land Lease 1918
As reported by the national news agency Bernama, Jaem dismissed the PAS MP’s allegation that the railway land in Tanjong Pagar was to be sold to Singapore. “The land is not ours,” he said. Rather it had been leased in 1918 for 999 years from the Straits Settlements, of which Singapore was then a part. “The Singapore Railway land leased was 434.26 acres (173.7ha). Out of this, 352.52 acres (141ha) was to be held by the Federal Land Commissioner for a period of 999 years while 81.74 acres (32.7ha) was for perpetuity. If the land were no longer to be used for rail services, it was to be returned to the respective Straits Settlement without compensation whatsoever. As such, such allegations are not true because the land is not ours,” he was quoted by Bernama as saying.
The Straits Settlements were a British colonial construct comprising Singapore, Malacca and Penang. It was dissolved in 1946 with Singapore becoming a crown colony separate from peninsular Malaya, which eventually became the Federation of Malaya. The 25 October 1918 agreement, known as the Singapore Railway Transfer Ordinance, gave the then Federated Malay States use of the land. But the land would have to be reverted – without cost, if the transfer was without cost – if it was not used for railway purposes.
The deputy minister’s statement gives a totally new complexion to the long-running saga of the Malayan Railway (KTM) land in Singapore since it became a hot issue in the 1990s. The general perception in both Malaysia and Singapore had been that KTM land in Singapore was Malaysian territory -- a residue of history. Singapore was part of Malaysia from 1963 to 1965. Upon this thin strip of land runs the Malayan Railway, from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands and across the Causeway to Johor Baru and the north of peninsular Malaysia. The land had long been seen as belonging to Malaysia because KTM was a state-owned entity, though it was subsequently corporatised in 1992.
Significance of Jaem’s Statement
Jaem’s statement however clarified for the first time that the KTM land did not in fact belong to Malaysia because it was “leased” from the Straits Settlements in 1918. It was also probably the first time that the Malaysian public learnt of the 999-year lease. Significantly, the 1918 agreement also stipulated that should the railway land not be used anymore for its intended purpose – that is for a railway line – then the land would revert to the Straits Settlement concerned, in this case, its successor entity, Singapore. Another significant point was that the land concerned, should it be vacated, would revert to the transferring party, in the words of Jaem, “without compensation whatsoever”. Hence his assertion that the issue of selling the KTM land in Singapore did not arise.
The larger significance of Jaem’s statement is over the issue of sovereignty. For long, it had been thought that the KTM land in Singapore, being Malaysian state land, would never be sold. Jaem’s statement has turned the issue of sovereignty on its head; it is Singapore’s sovereignty that is hinged to the KTM land. As long as KTM land existed in Singapore as state land, it could be argued that this affected Singapore’s sovereignty. But because the Malaysian leased ownership of the land is based on a historical agreement, Singapore has to respect the law. Malaysia was no doubt aware throughout the preceding two decades that it would lose ownership of the railway land should it move its station from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands. Hence the mutual recognition that the most rationale solution would be through joint development of the land to be vacated by the shift.
The deal tentatively agreed by the two Prime Ministers to resolve the KTM land imbroglio is based on this understanding. Singapore is prepared to realise the market value of the KTM land in offering Malaysia a 60% stake of the joint holding company for its development. Singapore is also prepared to swap the KTM land at Tanjong Pagar, Bukit Timah, Kranji and Woodlands for other parcels in downtown Singapore of equivalent value. So what was legally supposed to be returned for free will now largely be paid for by Singapore – at a price that is now the subject of mutual valuation and final negotiations. A Malaysian paper, The Star, reported that a valuation exercise last year estimated the total land value to be up to S$4bil (RM9.5bil).
The Larger Picture
Significantly, the debates in Malaysian circles to date have been in defence of the 1918 agreement. Shahrir Samad, the former minister from Johor, in another report by Bernama, urged Malaysians to move away from “nostalgic-romantic sentiments” to a future arrangement that would benefit KTM and Malaysia. UMNO Supreme Council member Norraesah Mohamad said the new deal would turn a “sleepy asset” into a high value commercial venture. UMNO Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin said the new agreement would allow Malaysia to monetise its assets in Singapore. “Malaysians must know that the Tanjong Pagar land cannot be utilised for anything other than a railway station."
Nevertheless this major shift in the railway land issue would not have been possible had there not been a new mindset at the very top of the Malaysian leadership. Under Prime Minister Najib Razak, we are seeing a government that is prepared to break new ground in seeking mutual accommodation for mutual gain. Singapore’s leadership has also contributed to this major shift by not being too calculating, and showing that Singapore can also think out of the box to secure a more harmonious long-term strategic relationship. The end result is not just a resolution of the railway land issue, but also possibly a settlement of other outstanding issues that have bedevilled bilateral ties for too long.
Yang Razali Kassim is Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201007134939/railway-land-swap-new-light-on-an-old-issue.html
Railway Land Swap: New Light On An Old Issue Tuesday, 13 July 2010 12:07 Written by RSIS
The Malaysian Deputy Foreign Minister’s recent statement in Parliament that the Malayan Railway land in Singapore did not belong to Malaysia but was leased sheds new light on an old issue. Was this the reason for the breakthrough in bilateral ties?
By Yang Razali Kassim
Malaysian Deputy Foreign Minister Richard Riot Jaem’s statement in Parliament on 28 June -- on the landmark deal for a swap of Malayan Railway land in Singapore -- has shed new light on an old issue. Responding to a question from an opposition PAS MP the deputy minister unveiled what had hitherto been little known to the public in Malaysia as well as Singapore.
Railway Land Lease 1918
As reported by the national news agency Bernama, Jaem dismissed the PAS MP’s allegation that the railway land in Tanjong Pagar was to be sold to Singapore. “The land is not ours,” he said. Rather it had been leased in 1918 for 999 years from the Straits Settlements, of which Singapore was then a part. “The Singapore Railway land leased was 434.26 acres (173.7ha). Out of this, 352.52 acres (141ha) was to be held by the Federal Land Commissioner for a period of 999 years while 81.74 acres (32.7ha) was for perpetuity. If the land were no longer to be used for rail services, it was to be returned to the respective Straits Settlement without compensation whatsoever. As such, such allegations are not true because the land is not ours,” he was quoted by Bernama as saying.
The Straits Settlements were a British colonial construct comprising Singapore, Malacca and Penang. It was dissolved in 1946 with Singapore becoming a crown colony separate from peninsular Malaya, which eventually became the Federation of Malaya. The 25 October 1918 agreement, known as the Singapore Railway Transfer Ordinance, gave the then Federated Malay States use of the land. But the land would have to be reverted – without cost, if the transfer was without cost – if it was not used for railway purposes.
The deputy minister’s statement gives a totally new complexion to the long-running saga of the Malayan Railway (KTM) land in Singapore since it became a hot issue in the 1990s. The general perception in both Malaysia and Singapore had been that KTM land in Singapore was Malaysian territory -- a residue of history. Singapore was part of Malaysia from 1963 to 1965. Upon this thin strip of land runs the Malayan Railway, from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands and across the Causeway to Johor Baru and the north of peninsular Malaysia. The land had long been seen as belonging to Malaysia because KTM was a state-owned entity, though it was subsequently corporatised in 1992.
Significance of Jaem’s Statement
Jaem’s statement however clarified for the first time that the KTM land did not in fact belong to Malaysia because it was “leased” from the Straits Settlements in 1918. It was also probably the first time that the Malaysian public learnt of the 999-year lease. Significantly, the 1918 agreement also stipulated that should the railway land not be used anymore for its intended purpose – that is for a railway line – then the land would revert to the Straits Settlement concerned, in this case, its successor entity, Singapore. Another significant point was that the land concerned, should it be vacated, would revert to the transferring party, in the words of Jaem, “without compensation whatsoever”. Hence his assertion that the issue of selling the KTM land in Singapore did not arise.
The larger significance of Jaem’s statement is over the issue of sovereignty. For long, it had been thought that the KTM land in Singapore, being Malaysian state land, would never be sold. Jaem’s statement has turned the issue of sovereignty on its head; it is Singapore’s sovereignty that is hinged to the KTM land. As long as KTM land existed in Singapore as state land, it could be argued that this affected Singapore’s sovereignty. But because the Malaysian leased ownership of the land is based on a historical agreement, Singapore has to respect the law. Malaysia was no doubt aware throughout the preceding two decades that it would lose ownership of the railway land should it move its station from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands. Hence the mutual recognition that the most rationale solution would be through joint development of the land to be vacated by the shift.
The deal tentatively agreed by the two Prime Ministers to resolve the KTM land imbroglio is based on this understanding. Singapore is prepared to realise the market value of the KTM land in offering Malaysia a 60% stake of the joint holding company for its development. Singapore is also prepared to swap the KTM land at Tanjong Pagar, Bukit Timah, Kranji and Woodlands for other parcels in downtown Singapore of equivalent value. So what was legally supposed to be returned for free will now largely be paid for by Singapore – at a price that is now the subject of mutual valuation and final negotiations. A Malaysian paper, The Star, reported that a valuation exercise last year estimated the total land value to be up to S$4bil (RM9.5bil).
The Larger Picture
Significantly, the debates in Malaysian circles to date have been in defence of the 1918 agreement. Shahrir Samad, the former minister from Johor, in another report by Bernama, urged Malaysians to move away from “nostalgic-romantic sentiments” to a future arrangement that would benefit KTM and Malaysia. UMNO Supreme Council member Norraesah Mohamad said the new deal would turn a “sleepy asset” into a high value commercial venture. UMNO Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin said the new agreement would allow Malaysia to monetise its assets in Singapore. “Malaysians must know that the Tanjong Pagar land cannot be utilised for anything other than a railway station."
Nevertheless this major shift in the railway land issue would not have been possible had there not been a new mindset at the very top of the Malaysian leadership. Under Prime Minister Najib Razak, we are seeing a government that is prepared to break new ground in seeking mutual accommodation for mutual gain. Singapore’s leadership has also contributed to this major shift by not being too calculating, and showing that Singapore can also think out of the box to secure a more harmonious long-term strategic relationship. The end result is not just a resolution of the railway land issue, but also possibly a settlement of other outstanding issues that have bedevilled bilateral ties for too long.
Yang Razali Kassim is Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,837
- Points
- 113
If I am not mistaken, the agreement says that the Malaysians do not pay for 1 cent of the development costs. The entire development is to paid for by Singapore, So, essentially, the MAlaysians will get 60% of any high rise condos, hotels, office towers, etc. for free as they did not pay for the land or construction costs. U still want to give kudos to the PAP, u fucktard?
Similar threads
